Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
On Friday, the United States Supreme Court presented Donald Trump a great victory by reducing the power of federal judges to impose decisions on a national level preventing its policies, but that has not resolved the question of whether it can limit citizenship of the right of birth.
Decision 6-3 of the Court, written by conservative judge Amy CONEY BARRETT, did not leave the order of citizenship by right of birth of Trump to immediately enter into force, leading the lower courts which blocked it to reconsider the scope of their ordinances. The decision has also not addressed its legality either.
The judges granted a request from the Trump administration to reduce the scope of three national injunctions issued by federal judges of Maryland, Massachusetts and the State of Washington which interrupted the application of its directive while the dispute contesting the policy.
The conservatives of the Court in the majority and its dissident liberals, the decision said that Trump’s decree can only take effect after the decision on Friday. The decision thus raises the perspective that Trump’s order ends up taking effect in certain parts of the country.
The first day of his second term in January, Trump signed an executive decree ordering federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is a American citizen or a legal resident, also called “green card”.
More than 150,000 newborns are refused citizenship each year under the Trump directive, according to the complainants who disputed it, including the prosecutors General Democrats of 22 states, as well as the defenders of the rights of immigrants and pregnant immigrants.
Trump praised the decision as a “monumental victory” while meeting journalists in the White House, and said that the administration can now move forward on priorities that do not only include the end of the citizenship of the birth law, but also on the application of immigration and the laws involving surgeries affirming sex.
“We have so much. I have an entire list,” said Trump.
Complaints concerning “judge purchases”
Federal judges have taken measures, in particular by issuing many orders nationwide, preventing Trump’s aggressive use of executive action to advance his program. The three judges in the matters of citizenship of birth law revealed that Trump’s order probably violates the language of citizenship in the 14th amendment of the American Constitution.
“No one disputes that the executive has the duty to respect the law. But the judiciary does not have the frantic power to enforce this obligation – in fact, the law sometimes prohibits the judicial power from doing so,” wrote Barrett for the majority.
The judge of the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the two other liberal members of the Court, wrote: “The majority ignores entirely if the decree of the president is constitutional, but focusing solely on the question of whether the federal courts have the equitable authority of issuing universal injunctions. Yet kind of case.
“Today, the threat is the citizenship of the right of birth. Tomorrow, a different administration can try to seize firearms of law -respecting citizens to prevent people from some times from gathering in worship,” wrote Sotomayor.
The case before the Supreme Court of the United States was unusual insofar as the administration used it to affirm that federal judges do not have the power to issue national, or “universal”, injunctions, and asked the judges to reign in this way and to enforce the president’s directive, even without weighing its legal merits.
The question is linked to the concerns of “judge purchases”, where interest groups and complainants of all kinds interest prosecution before the judges they perceive as political or friendly allies to their causes. The United States Judicial Conference, the policies for the policies for federal courts, has been publishing advice to reduce practice.
The Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the victory decision to stop “the endless dam of the national injunctions against President Trump”.
The Republicans, and the conservatives in particular, have long complained of a single judge prohibiting questions for the whole country, although the Democrats were injured during the administration of Joe Biden when a single Judge of Texas rendered a radical decision on the drug against abortion. In the end, the Supreme Court essentially rejected the interpretation of this judge in a decision 9-0.
No decision on the citizenship of the right of birth
The court heard arguments in the duties of the droit citizenship on May 15.
US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the judges that Trump’s order “reflects the initial meaning of the 14th amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not illegal foreigners or temporary visitors”.
The complainants argued that the Trump directive had retained the 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the 1861-1865 civil war which ended slavery in the United States, the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment indicates that all citizens are citizens of the United States.
Not all countries automatically give citizenship at birth. Great Britain and Australia modified their laws in the 1980s, forcing a parent to be a citizen or a permanent resident for a newborn to qualify for citizenship, in part to prevent the so-called birth tourism.
Read the advice of the court:
In Canada, citizenship is extremely granted to any child born on their soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, according to the principle of Solid juiceLatin for “soil law”. There are some exceptions, especially for children of foreign diplomats.
Ottawa’s current liberal government is examining legislation to extend citizenship to children born outside Canada to Canadian parents.
A chain of decisions allows the White House to promulgate the agenda
The United States Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has given Trump some important victories on its immigration policies since returning to the post in January.
On Monday, he paved the way for his administration to resume the deportation of migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the damage they could face. In separate decisions on May 19 and 30, it allowed the administration to end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons.
But the Court of May 16 maintained its block on the deportations of Venezuelan migrants by Trump under a law of 1798 historically used only in wartime, lacking its administration for having sought to withdraw them without adequate regular procedure.
